Hawkins, ex parte
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1799 |
| Date | 25 June 1799 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 31 E.R. 357
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
hawkins, Ex parte. June 25lh, 1799. A detainer, before the Defendant could be discharged from an illegal arrest, as where he was returning from his examination under a commission of bankruptcy against him; cannot be supported. The petitioner, who became a bankrupt upon the 27th of September 1796, having unfortunately omitted to surrender at the time, by an order made on a petition presented for that purpose the Commissioners were ordered to call a meeting ; the petitioner to be at liberty to surrender, and be examined, &c., in the same manner as if he had surrendered within the time limited. The bankrupt surrendered at a meeting called under that order upon the 1st of June ; which was farther adjourned to the Monday following ; when he passed his final examination ; and upon quitting the Commissioners on his return home he was arrested by process out of the Court of Tolzey in Bristol at the suit of Christopher Bedford for £500 and upwards. Bedford discontinued the action on the following day : but, before the petitioner could be discharged, a detainer was lodged against him by Francis Smith, William Parsons, and Henry Smith, for £300, upon process out of the Court of the Tolzey. Bedford afterwards issued a new writ and lodged a detainer against the petitioner for the same debt ; and he remained iri custody in Newgate, Bristol. The petition prayed, that Smith, Parsons, and Smith, and Bedford may be respectively ordered to discharge the petitioner from the said arrests and detainers. [692] The Plaintiffs in the said actions had respectively proved their debts under the Commission ; and a dividend of 6s. in the pound had been declared : but no dividend had been received. Mr. Cooke, .for the Petitioner contended, that he ought to be discharged. Mr. Whishaw, for the Plaintiffs at law supported the detainers. Lord Chancellor said, the original arrest being bad, the detainers could not be sustained. The order was therefore, that Plaintiffs should discharge the petitioner. (See...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coppinger v Bradley
...341. Dand v. KingscoteENR 6 Mees. & W. 174. Brancker v. Molyneux 1 Scott & N. R. 533. MitchellENR 2 Bing. N. C. 619. Ex parte Hawkins 4 Ves. jun. 691. Pearson v. YewensENR 5 Bing. N. C.567. Frost's case 5 Co. 89. Salmon v. PercivalENR Cro. Car. 196. The College of Physicians 12 Med. 386. Cr......